Test GCC conversion with reposurgeon available

Joseph Myers joseph@codesourcery.com
Wed Dec 18 18:16:00 GMT 2019

On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Jason Merrill wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:39 PM Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
> wrote:
> > Points for consideration:
> >
> > 1. Do we want some kind of rearrangement of refs as in the 1b
> > repository or not?
> >
> Maybe?  How much space does that save in a clone?  How much work does a
> partial clone add on the server, since the server needs to pack up the
> objects for the partial clone rather than just transmitting its own packs?

I haven't measured work on the server, and timing individual clones is 
liable to a lot of variation from variable load there, but for a single 
clone --mirror of the 1b repository (so all refs, including refs/deleted/) 
I got

real    13m16.473s
user    16m45.429s
sys     0m33.901s

and 1360 MB objects directory, but for a clone without --mirror (so only a 
limited subset of refs and the server needing to build a pack)

real    15m5.554s
user    12m11.771s
sys     0m26.914s

and 950 MB objects directory.  Adding the objects from the existing 
git-svn mirror (presumably also under refs not fetched by default) 
increases repository size by about 300 MB, based on a previous test of 
doing that (most blob and tree objects will be shared between the two 
versions of the history, but all the commit objects are separate).

> > 3. Where an attribution comes from an author map rather than a
> > ChangeLog file, do we wish to use the existing author map or do people
> > prefer using names from that map but with @gcc.gnu.org addresses (and
> > @gnu.org for usernames that only committed in the gcc2 period)?
>  I lean toward the latter.

I'll plan to change the author map to default to @gcc.gnu.org and @gnu.org 

Joseph S. Myers

More information about the Gcc mailing list